Jump to content

Talk:Deep Throats

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDeep Throats was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2006Articles for deletionKept
May 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 13, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    This is a stupid question, but on the Production section, where it states "It was originally intended for Mayor West to beat Meg up when she is applying for a job within his office, but the scene was never used", does that mean that West was going to "attack" Meg or what? I know, it seems like a stupid question.
Yes, I've changed it appropriately. Qst (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Does Reference 3 cover the fact about Seth MacFarlane's father performing in bars?
Yeah, I can remember it from the commentary a few weeks back. Qst (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Alright, I made some changes here and there, but the rest reads well. There's only like two things that need clarifying and if their gotten, then I'll pass the article to GA. Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Qst for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


While I won't delist, I wouldn't say this is a "glowing" review. The lead is still very short, and the culture references and reception sections are very short. Although I think editors are following guidelines for such articles, so I think it still meets the "minimum" criteria. But improvements can nonetheless be made. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's as maybe, but the lead is the same as what is used on most Family Guy and The Simpsons' episode articles. Thanks, ThinkBlue for the review. ;) Qst (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was looking through other GA Family Guy articles and I just went with those examples. And, you are quite welcome Qst, for the GA review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction disagreement

[edit]

Twice I've noticed the addition to the introduction

Chris gives a horribly inaccurate description of marijuana and its effects on the human body. All "facts" given have been proven discredited by the majority of people in the scientific community

First of all, this statement is not NPOV. Second, the information does not belong in the introduction. I don't want to become part of an edit war over this, but I see no way that the statement contributes to the article. 97.112.150.222 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and say you are right to remove it. CTJF83 chat 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the executive meddling?

[edit]

I'm surprised there's no mention of interview where MacFarlane explains that after school message at the end was only added because the Fox executives made him, and that he chose a hamfisted way of portraying it as a form of protest.

I can't seem to find the interview, but the it was about the episode 420, the pro-marijuana episode, and he explained that his views had not actually changed. — trlkly 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed lyric

[edit]

Firstly, other places on the internet disagree on the exact phrasing of the "do her from behind" bit, but the REAL question is how the song would have ended, since "just to see how work was goin" wouldn't really fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Deep Throats/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am listing this article for good article reassessment, due to the many unsourced claims in the cultural references section, has a ring of WP:OR to me and unsourced plot (not one of the main points). The references need expanding (especially 7), the external lnik to a clip from Youtube is very bizarre!

Example of Unsourced Claims:

  • "On August 5, 2007, this episode was featured among a four-episode set of Family Guy on Fox, hosted by the stars of the film Superbad." (Reception)
  • "The episode takes its title from a scene when an anonymous informant (later revealed to be Kermit the Frog) secretly meets Brian in an underground parking lot. Brian calls the informant "Deep Throat," in a reference to the anonymous informant Deep Throat. The meeting itself is a reference to the meeting with Deep Throat or to the 1976 film All the Presidents Men." (CR)
  • "The Noid attempting to ruin Mayor West's pizza is a reference to the Noid from former Domino's Pizza television advertisements. The scene where Cleveland runs off as a black panther when he notices Meg and Brian looking at him as he destroys Brian's cab with a crowbar is a reference to Michael Jackson's "Black or White" 2nd ending known as the Black or White Panther Dance. When Lois mentions to Peter that it would be fun to be in the community talent show, Stewie says "You know what else is fun? Watching Mr. Belvedere without people talking so loudly!". He then proceeds to sing the theme song loudly. When Peter is being driven around by Brian, he refers to him as Bitterman, a reference to the chauffeur in the 1981 film Arthur." (CR)

- On hold for 7 days, if these points are fixed, then I will do a more detailed GAR review. MayhemMario 20:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on hold for more than 7 days, and still no action has been taken. Failed. MayhemMario 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deep Throats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_Throats&oldid=1206914839"